Now I think I fully understand the deviousness of the Alinskyites

[justoffal]

Um no.....Guantanamo time. It's where he belongs after the death of Border agent/agents killed by his cover up.

 

[degsme]

Um no.....Guantanamo time. It's where he belongs after the death of Border agent/agents killed by his cover up.

How did Border agents get killed by a coverup? Guns don't kill people... people kill people.

 

[degsme]

Remember Guns are Not Dangerous...

QED, selling guns is not dangerous
QED the US Atty that authorized the program under the GWB Administration (and I don't think Holder was in the GWB administration) didn't endanger anyone

 

[justoffal]

Liars are dangerous though...especially when they hold public office and yes they are responsible for their decisions. Also you seem to be forgetting that the crime is described not by the gun but by the hands that it ended up in. Therefore your attempt to create a logical fallacy of sorts is wanting for substance........

 

[degsme]

Liars are dangerous though...especially when they hold public office and yes they are responsible for their decisions.

And your evidence that Holder is a liar? Vs. the evidence that Rice, Cheney, GWB, Phill Gramm, Rumsfeld and Gingrich (as civillian adviser to the Pentagon) were?

 

[degsme]

Only in civil court, not criminal. This is neither.
[/qutoe]
correct. This is enssence an unmoderated Forensics in the most conflicted case and a civil discussion in the least. Which means that fairly precise laws of logicall fallacy apply. In courtrooms - particlularly with juries, "playing to the jury" ie "pounding the table rather than the facts or the law" is a common tactic. Something that many posts by conservatives do here. I'm just calling you out on it.

And you don't like it.

And the main reason for that is that if you restrict yourself to logically consistent reasoning, and include the full panoply or relevant facts, your claims don't standup.

I think now is a good time to ask the question that's been out there but nobody has voiced yet.

What fallacies have YOU resorted to?

Feel free to go back and identify them. I'm not in the habit of engaging in Maoist "self criticism". (and yeah that has an element of Guilt by association within it). If you are unable to actually identify much in the way of logical fallacy in my posts - I suggest it says quite a bit about the dynamic between us.

Oh it matters. It's tu quoque but it matters.

If its the logical fallacy of Tu Quoque that it by definition does NOT matter since it is not relevant to the discussion

See, I've been making the case that a good portion of your "issues" deals with projecting your short comings onto others.

and this is just you resorting to ad hominem again. and in general (and yes that's a generalization) those who invoke "projection" are the ones most likely to actually be engaged in it. IOW your claim that I'm not addressing the issues is likely based in the very fact that your own approach is one that does not address issues but mostly spins into the very sort of things you accuse others of doing.

Logical fallacies have clear definitions (something I continually re-link for you) and thus the structure of an claim can easily be measured against it. Something I've not seen you do in your accusations

It's kind of a living on going tu quoque with you. Every single challenge is met with distraction and bull: Cherry picking, defining "constitutionist," defining "socialism" etc.

No that'snot accurate. Pretty much every claim BY YOU or conservatives in general about "socialism" is based on my challenging the definition -precisely because as with "racism" there is an active attempt to use the emotive responses to "socialism" as a short cut around the fact that the policies under ciscussion are not socialist and actually have a strong and long Constittuional, funcitonal and pragmatic track record.

IRP addresses the topic. You do NOT.

This is YOUR claim about your own arguement. Its not persuasive. Particularly since you try to frame the debate in an invalid manner, your complaints about others refusing to agree to your framing is not the same thing as "not addressing the topic".

IOW if somone predicates their aguement on the inerrancy of the christian bible, it is perfectly fair game to demonstrate that the bible is internally inconsistent, inconsistent with observable and independenlty verifiable factual reality, and has multiple translations that are in conflict with each other. And in doing so, the rest of the argument falls simply because the predicates are wrong.

Your predicates are based in logical fallacy upon logical fallacy mixed with selective and often out of context quotations. This is the hallmark of someone trying to prove something they believe in the face of contrary evidence rather than looking to derive a hypothesis from the broadest set of relevant information. And as such you basically go off the rails from the outset.

You distract. You deploy red herrings like salmon deploy eggs.

If your logic and premises are flawed, there is no red herring to call that

Your reply to this?

see you even got that one wrong. Mind you you are correct that it is an ad hominem attack rather than one that addresses the core issue of your foundational approach

IRP has acknowledged elsewhere that in part the reason he "addreses the topic" is that he's not seen your line of reasoning before. OTOH, Ive seen it dozens of times... contrary to your self-agrandized (yes ad hominem) assertion (no not ad hominem since you provide zero evidence for to support your claim) you are not presenting "non-conventional knowlege". You are presenting a selective set of items that are not really probitive to your core thesis. I suspect its precisely because the line of reasoning comes from belief not knowledge seeking that I don't think you even understand the core underlying premise you are trying to put forth.

. . .and something else you'll pull out of your crevice.

Ah yes, more ad hominem

I know you'd like to go toe to toe with me on fallacies in a :censored::censored::censored: for tat exchange. But nobody gives a damn about that. . .and you'd lose anyway just like you lost the cherry picking and definition exchanges.

I lost ???? ROTFLMAO - dude go check out the majority of comments made by readers.

And you well know what the results were of that thread that got deleted.

Stop foooling yourself.

It's an invitation to waste more time. No thanks.

Notice the projection again here? Becuase this is precisely what the majority said about your posts.

 

[Angel of Dearth]

if you restrict yourself to logically consistent reasoning, and include the full panoply or relevant facts, your claims don't standup.

But I never claimed to be so restricted. Furthermore, you CAN'T restrict yourself in such a manner. YOU engage in faith. What's more, you do it in these posts. At your core is faith with not a scrap of logic to support it. Do you mean to tell me your entire bullshit and claptrap about "fallacies" over the past few weeks is in no way based on faith? Tell me I'm wrong.

Feel free to go back and identify them.

You may have convinced me. I may start to identify them from this point forward. You've got more holes in your arguments than a sponge. And there is no way in hell you will slow down. No need to search the archive. The streets are paved with gold.

and this is just you resorting to ad hominem again.

You're wrong. Saying you're wrong is not ad hominem. It is not an irrlelvant attack having nothing to do with the "logical" progression. Calling you an idiot would be. You have no idea what an ad hominem is. Saying you don't know what one is, is NOT ad hominem.

and in general (and yes that's a generalization) those who invoke "projection" are the ones most likely to actually be engaged in it. . .your claim that I'm not addressing the issues is likely based. . .

Who cares what is "likely?" Relying on what is "most likely" is a biased sample fallacy or an induction fallacy--take your pick. You're statemets are full of crap. You can call that ad hominem if you like but just put it off to the side and forget about it.

Pretty much every claim BY YOU or conservatives in general about "socialism"

Induction fallacy. Exactly the same as above.

Your predicates are based in logical fallacy upon logical fallacy mixed with selective and often out of context quotations.

Nonsequitur. Not once have you ever shown any quote to be out of context.

I suspect its precisely because the line of reasoning comes from belief not knowledge seeking

This will be fun. I assert your line of reasoning is based on belief. I will prove it. Answer this:

Do you believe in logic and reasoning? If not or if belief is not required then answer, "Why not?"

 

[degsme]

if you restrict yourself to logically consistent reasoning, and include the full panoply or relevant facts, your claims don't standup.

But I never claimed to be so restricted.

NO KIDDING!!! ANd we should take someone seriously who admits that his "reasoning" is not logically consistent!!!! LMFAO!!!

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

Furthermore, you CAN'T restrict yourself in such a manner. YOU engage in faith.

definitioanl reasoning fallacy, ad hominem fallacy.

You may have convinced me. I may start to identify them from this point forward.

Good luck with that.

You're wrong. Saying you're wrong is not ad hominem.

It is if you do not demonstrate how someone is wrong. Just SAYING they are "wrong" is an attack on them as a person. Saying their facts are wrong and backing that up is a different matter.

[quote
Who cares what is "likely?" Relying on what is "most likely" is a biased sample fallacy or an induction fallacy--take your pick.

No actually "most likely" if backed by statistics is neither biased sample nor induction fallacy. In this case note that I admit up front that I am engaged in a generalization and thus potentially subject to "hasty generalization" and/or "insufficient sample" fallacy. So unlike some posters here, I am admitting up front as to the potential weakness in my arguement. Only to have you "Pounce" and pretend to have found it all on your own... except that you got the wrong fallacy . My I imagine you feel oh so proud...

Induction fallacy. Exactly the same as above.

Actually there is no such thing as an "induction fallacy"... there is the fallacy of WEAK induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization aka "hasty generalization" but you fail to demonstrate that this is a faulty generalization. Though I will admit I probably ought have said THE MAJORITY of claims by You and conservatives is about socialism.

Your predicates are based in logical fallacy upon logical fallacy mixed with selective and often out of context quotations.

Nonsequitur. Not once have you ever shown any quote to be out of context.

Actually I have. I've shown that your whole invocation of Federalist Papers as an unbiased view of Madison's ideas is not supported by the Context. Because the Context for them was advocacy propoganda for ratification - rather than private honest rumination or documentary note taking.

Secondly for the whole sentance to be "non-sequitor" fallacy you would have to show that my point about your predicates being flawed and based on an agglomoration of logical fallacies, somehow is separated from our discussion about your reliance on logical fallacies.... which of course is an oxymoronic claim.

Thus once again your claim of "non-sequitor" is simply... false. And why would you level a logically false claim against someone you disagree with??? well one might suspect... ad hominem agian.

I suspect its precisely because the line of reasoning comes from belief not knowledge seeking

This will be fun. I assert your line of reasoning is based on belief. I will prove it. Answer this:

Do you believe in logic and reasoning? If not or if belief is not required then answer, "Why not?"

Oh goody - epistimology 101....

Logic and reasoning have been shown to be more efficacious in reaching consistently predictable outcomes than any other mechanism used. they are by definition rational They are pragmatic. They are consisent.

internal consistency is the hallmark of integrity. I LIKE integrity. irrelevant of whether I believe in it or not.

Do you DISLIKE Integrity?
Do you DISLIKE Consistency?
Do you DISLIKE Rationality?






Nonsequitur. Not once have you ever shown any quote to be out of context.


This will be fun. I assert your line of reasoning is based on belief. I will prove it. Answer this:

Do you believe in logic and reasoning? If not or if belief is not required then answer, "Why not?"[/QUOTE]

 

[Angel of Dearth]

Do you believe in logic and reasoning? If not or if belief is not required then answer, "Why not?"

It's a simple little set of questions.

 

[worldlymrb]

I'm beginning to see a patern by the left which is Waaaaaaa... Bush/Cheney did it tooooo Waaaaaa!

Hope/Change 2012

BTW: The White Paper Studies was done by Bush admin. But everything was shelved until Il Douche' occupied the WH

 

[degsme]

I'm beginning to see a patern by the left which is Waaaaaaa... Bush/Cheney did it tooooo Waaaaaa!

um .... no.

 

[Angel of Dearth]

Are you going to answer the question above or not?

 

[888888]

The Constitution separates the powers of government in such a way that given a virtuous populace who therefore elect virtuous leaders, no one branch of government will become more powerful than the others. ....quote from AOD monster thread on Constitutionist verus progressive....attributed to AOD.

Now I think I fully understand the deviousness of the Alinskyites. Degenerate the voting populous and you thereby degenerate the foundation upon which good law and common sense are built. Create a dependent society that can do nothing for itself.... not even think for itself. Tell them that self sufficiency is an evil thing. Tell them that the collective owes them a living....that it must take care of them. Tell them that the self sufficient ones will destory that relationship uless they are themselves destoyed. Those evil, self sufficent conservatives!! Eric Holder must arrest them all and then detain them indefintely!!

What bothers me the most are people who really don't haver a fuking clue like you. I know your stupid enough to believe what you write because you repeat it so often.
You want everyone to believe that if people just didn't get any help from the govt that they all of a sudden would become productive people and not need help. They would all of a sudden live in communities that have businesses to hire them, schools to teach them and no crime to hurt them. They would not be preyed on by thieves and drug dealers. Their incomes would soar and they would become wealthy like you.
ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS MAKE THEM DEPENDANT ON THEMSELVES, and everything will be better.

And you know what is really sad, we could do everything those on the right want and it still wouldn't make much of a difference on our budget, we would still be going into debt. The only difference is the wealthy would keep more and the middle class would grow into a larger lower class. And not one penny that is saved would be returned to any of us on this board.

Oh if any of you really were a part of who would be helped by your beliefs, I could understand you, but we all know that the only thing you do is make it so those who are at the top stay there, as they play you like a piano. Your beliefs are exactly what they want you to believe, the only difference is they understand that you too stupid to understand, that your doing their bidding for them, and you receive nothing except more of the cost of running the govt at the Federal, STATE and Local levels.

 

[888888]

How did Border agents get killed by a coverup? Guns don't kill people... people kill people.

WOW, now that is a mouth full. I have been told several times that very fact. All those guns that were being traced never killed one person, the person pulling the triger did, RIGHT RIGHTY"S.

 

[888888]

I'm beginning to see a patern by the left which is Waaaaaaa... Bush/Cheney did it tooooo Waaaaaa!

Hope/Change 2012

BTW: The White Paper Studies was done by Bush admin. But everything was shelved until Il Douche' occupied the WH

You got some proof of that DBAGMRB?

 

[888888]

Never seen anything in Fast and furious that Holter or anybody in Obama's adm knew about it before it went bad. It was a small section of a larger part of the ATF. It was never brought up to the ntop level of govt to make a decision and everyone knows it, except you on the far right. Asa matter of fact this type of operation would be defended to end by Bush/Cheney if it was found to be under their wing, and every right wingnut would be calling anyone who complained as LIBO terrorist lovers.

 

[degsme]

Are you going to answer the question above or not?

Kuru?

 

[Angel of Dearth]

Do you believe in logic and reasoning? If not or if belief is not required then answer, "Why not?"

 

[degsme]

Do you believe in logic and reasoning? If not or if belief is not required then answer, "Why not?"

No I believe in positive empiricism. because nothing else has been shown to work as well.
There is no need for "belief" in logic and reasoning because they are empirically demonstrable.

So unless you are going to go back to the nugatory semantic arguement of primo-genitor and the epistemology of what is empiricism, then we are on solid common ground here. Unless of course you reject empiricism

 

[degsme]

Do you believe in logic and reasoning? If not or if belief is not required then answer, "Why not?"

It's a simple little set of questions.

And again its a set of questions that contain withing them the unproven and unfouned persumption that logic and reasoning require a belief at their foundation.

But in some ways this gets us somewhee. Basically what you are asking is about the epistemological basis of my world view. Mine is positive empiricism. and it is something I can prove with inductive closure but not full transitive closure.

Now if you are going to argue that you do not believe in empiricism or positive empiricism, well then in essence we cannot communicate at all. But I would contend that any person who puts a pot of hot water on a boiling stove and expects it to boil rather than freeze is a positive empiricist.
any person that uses language that is comprehensilble to others is a positive empiriist in the vast majority of their approach to life.

OTOH if you pray your coffee hot in the morning, or you pray your thoughts at others via god... then and only then do you have a case to make against positive empiricism.